Articles Tagged with Personal Injury

Our dangerous drug attorneys often review cases in which an inappropriate drug was prescribed for a patient. Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization founded in 1971 to represent consumers’ interest in Congress, the executive branch and the courts. In the latest newsletter from The Health Research Group, a division of Public Citizen, there is an interesting article concerning direct advertising by pharmaceutical companies.

The article points out that other than New Zealand, the United States is the only country that allows direct to consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies.

According to Public Citizen, the drug companies have become masters at targeting patients and spurring prescriptions through these ads. Most of the time, the ads encourage patients to use newer medications, exposing them to drugs with weaker safety records, and driving up the cost of health care. The ads have also been shown to omit important safety information, while attempting to transform patients into agents of the drug companies pressuring physicians for drugs they see celebrated between television shows.

Last week, two Georgia nursing homes were added to the list of the worst in the country according to federal data.

The Place at Augusta and Shoreham of Marietta were cited for deficiencies and placed on the list of the worst nursing homes in the country by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. These two homes in Georgia were among 54 nursing homes in 33 states that failed to improve quality of patient care and/or administrative services over the last year.

According to the report, The Place at Augusta has been on the special focus list for 34 months, and Shoreham of Marietta for 21 months. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services compiled this list and published it in an effort to pressure targeted nursing homes to improve.

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a case which may have a major impact on lawsuits against medical device makers brought by patients who have been injured by defective products. The Supreme Court will be asked to consider whether patients can bring lawsuits over defective devices which have been cleared for sale by the Food and Drug Administrations’ approval process. In this case, a federal appeals court barred a suit which claims a New York man suffered permanent injury when a Medtronic heart catheter burst during a heart procedure.

The decision of the lower court would undercut thousands of lawsuits, including cases over defibrilators made by Medtronic and Boston Scientific Corp. Guidant unit. The ruling may also shield Medtronic from suits over its recalled Fidelis defibrilator wires. In 1996, a divided Supreme Court allowed lawsuits over products approved through a separate Food and Drug Administration approval process that provided for fast-track reviews of devices. The case before the Supreme Court concerns a pre-market approval process which is a more intensive FDA review.

The Bush administration is not surprisingly backing the medical device makers in their argument that the federal pre-market system should preclude claims that companies ought to have done more to ensure safety.

On November 21, 2007, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued an important opinion in Dees, et al. v. Logan, involving uninsured motorist coverage in the state of Georgia. The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether a damage award to an insured can be offset by workers’ compensation or similar benefits paid to the insured. The Court answered with a resounding “No”.

Dees and his wife brought suit against a defendant seeking damages for injuries suffered in an automobile collision. The jury awarded the Dees $130,000 for lost wages, $4,939 for reimbursement of COBRA payments, $10,000 for pain and suffering and $5,000 for loss of consortium. The Dees uninsured motorist carrier, State Farm, argued that it could offset the jury’s award by the amounts Dees had already received in workers’ compensation benefits, social security disability benefits and a pretrial settlement with the defendant’s liability insurer. The State Farm argument was based upon policy language that “any amount payable shall be reduced by any amount paid or payable to or for the insured: (a) Under any workers’ compensation, disability benefits or similar law”.

The trial court accepted State Farm’s argument and ordered that the Dees recover nothing from State Farm under their uninsured motorist policy. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court.

In the case of Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 123 S.Ct. 2402, (2003) the U.S. Supreme Court opened the doors to class action arbitrations. The Court held that if an arbitration clause is silent regarding class actions, it’s up to the arbitrator (applying state law) to decide whether class arbitration will proceed.

Banks, credit companies and employers which traditionally have favored mandatory arbitration clauses, have been adding waivers to arbitration contracts specifically exempting class actions from arbitration. Consumer lawyers have responded by challenging the waivers in both state and federal court.

Historically, consumer rights lawyers have opposed clauses in consumer and employment contracts that mandate arbitration to resolve disputes, claiming that the binding nature of arbitration violates plaintiffs’ due process rights. But given the choice between no class action and class action arbitration, consumer attorneys obviously favor the clauses.

It was reported today that a Rhode Island hospital has been fined $50,000 by the Rhode Island Department of Health and reprimanded after a doctor performed brain surgery on the wrong side of the patient’s head.

According to reports, this was the third time this year at the particular hospital that a doctor performed brain surgery on the wrong side of the patient’s head.

The most recent case happened last Friday when the Chief Resident began surgery on the wrong side of an 82 year-old patient’s brain. Fortunately, the patient is reported to be doing okay after the surgery. In February of this year, a different doctor performed neurosurgery on the wrong side of another patient’s head. That patient was reported to be doing okay as well.

Last Friday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a safety review of Tamiflu, manufactured by Roche, and Relenza, manufactured by Glaxo Smith Kline. Both of these drugs are designed to mitigate the effects of the flu. The review addresses the potential dangerous effect these drugs can have on children.
The FDA began reviewing Tamiflu in 2005 after it received reports of children experiencing neurological problems, including hallucinations and convulsions. Twenty five patients under the age of 21, most of them in Japan, have died after taking the drug. Five of these deaths resulted from children becoming involved in accidents after taking the drug. There have been no reports of child deaths connected with Relenza, but there have been reports of children taking the drug showing similar neurological problems to those involved with Tamiflu.
The FDA has recommended adding language about the possible side effects to labeling for physicians who prescribe Tamiflu and Relenza. Additionally, an outside group of pediatric experts is scheduled to begin a review of the safety of these drugs when used for children.

Late last week, Baja Motor Sports of Phoenix in conjunction with the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall for 16,000 all terrain vehicles marketed for children as young as 12. The Baja 90, Baja Wilderness 90 and Baja Wilderness 90U four-wheel ATVs were recalled because they are missing a tire pressure gauge and a flagpole mounting bracket. Although neither the CPSC nor the company reported any injuries, they did consider the lack of the items to be a potential danger. These particular vehicles were sold on line and at retail outlets such as Pep Boys between November 2004 and July of this year.

In May, another Chinese-made ATV was recalled because it lacked a stop-engine switch and other safety features.

Competitors have raised safety concerns about Chinese-made ATVs. Established ATV manufacturers contend that the cheaper imported ATVs, which are making up a growing share of the U.S. market, are less likely to meet voluntary safety standards adopted by the domestic industry. As a result, the larger ATV manufacturers are lobbying Congress to make the current voluntary safety standards mandatory.

This week, California’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit against 20 companies implicated in the various lead-tainted toy recalls of 2007. Among the companies named in the lawsuit are Mattel, Fisher-Price, Toys R Us, Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, K B Toys, Costco Wholesale, Eveready Battery Company, K-Mart, and Marvel Entertainment.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies violated the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 since they failed to notify customers of toys in the marketplace that contained high concentrations of lead. Although the federal government doesn’t require such labeling, California does.

The lawsuit contends that the companies knowingly exposed individuals to lead and did not provide warnings about the risk. Lead is known to cause cancer and reproductive harm, as well as other effects, such as learning disabilities in children. The lawsuit seeks to force manufacturers and retailers to adopt procedures for inspecting products to make sure they are safe. There is a statutory penalty of up to $2,500 for each item sold officials said.

Our serious injury lawyers are frequently litigating car collision cases in which the driver causing the serious injury was using a cell phone while operating the vehicle.

Research has consistently shown that operating an automobile while talking on a cell phone, either hand-held or hands-free, increases the risk of an accident by three to four times that normally experienced by attentive drivers. The general consensus of the scientific community is that there is little, if any, difference in crash rates involving hands-free versus hand-held cell phones. The very fact that one is engaged in a two-way conversation on a cellular phone, not the fact that one is holding the phone, is what causes a cognitive distraction which leads to the increased rates of collisions. Scientists have named this condition “inattention blindness”. This condition inhibits drivers’ abilities to detect changes in road conditions while they are carrying on a two-way conversation.

Several states and several communities have worked in a variety of ways to reduce dangers caused by this driver distraction. The highest standard prohibits use of any hand-held cellular phone but permits drivers to use hand-free devices. The District of Columbia, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York have adopted this standard. Eight states have banned school bus drivers from talking on any type of cellular device.